Patients and Community Members as Equal Partners in Curriculum Decision‐Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients and community members make essential contributions to health professional education, which has consistently demonstrated a positive impact on student learning. However, patients and community members do not often have the opportunity for formal participation at higher levels outside instructional spaces. Teaching faculty leaders in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia formed the Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) whereby community members contribute as equal partners in curriculum decision-making. APPROACH: The IAC provided oversight and authority on the decolonisation and Indigenisation efforts in the pharmacy programme and was formally embedded in the governance model and reporting structure of the curriculum committee. Majority membership was Indigenous members to ensure these experts were the leading voice. The IAC developed five curricular pillars and accompanying core learning objectives to underpin all Indigenous content across the pharmacy programme and devised an engagement pathway for collaboration with community partners. EVALUATION: Key changes were implemented in the pharmacy curriculum, including a mandatory Indigenous Health and Cultural Safety course, the first of its kind among pharmacy programmes in Canada. In formal committee feedback, community members described feeling valued as their input is reflected and prioritised in decision-making. Student members were motivated to form a new social club for Indigenous students to connect and share cultural experiences. IMPACT: The work of IAC ensured relevant student courses and content was rooted in authentic lived experiences with a community-informed focus on strengths and needs. Equal-partner roles in curriculum decision-making loosened conventional hierarchical structures and reinforced community relationships and forged new collaborations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".